[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# bf wrappers

- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:31:56 PDT
- From:
- Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

    I'm in the process of creating bf_read and bf_notify hackers.  Here's the
    rub:

    read() and notify() are tricky verbs to create bf wrappers for.  The
    wrappers must never traceback, or else Very, Very Bad Things happen.
    Hence, they are -d and never call any verbs that do not reside on #0.

    read() and notify() must, in accordance with documentation and
    compatibility with existing verbs, raise E_PERM, E_INVARG, or E_NARGS if
    called certain ways.  This is impossible to do with a -d bf wrapper.

    IMHO, raise() should override the -d status of a verb.  I see no reason
    why it shouldn't, and there must be some way to raise an error from a -d
    verb, such as the case of my bf_notify verb.  I _really_ don't want to put
    error handlers around each and every single line in bf_notify out of fear
    that it may cause a traceback and the afore mentioned Very, Very Bad
    Things.

    I thought I read somewhere about how when a bf handler explicitly raises
    an error, the traceback makes it appear as if the bf function itself
    raised the error..  guess not.

    Phantom

Follow-Ups:

- Re: bf wrappers

- From: Gustavo Glusman <bmgustav@bioinformatics.weizmann.ac.il>

- Re: bf wrappers

- From: Richard Godard <janus@cam.org>

- Prev: Re: The best way for @beep
- Next: Re: bf wrappers
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index